2021 QCCA 230, 2021 QCCA 230

A.T. c. Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital 2021 QCCA 230 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-028873-206 ( 500-40-056136-208 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: February 10, 2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE JULIE DUTIL, J.A. PATRICK HEALY, J.A. SIMON RUEL, J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL A... t... Mtre david leclair ( David Leclair, Avocat ) By videoconference RESPONDENTS COUNSEL SIR MORTIMER B.

DAVIS JEWISH general HOSPITAL, administered by the CIUSss du centre-ouest-de-l’île-de-montréal d r louise miner Mtre marie-nancy paquet M tre blanche fournier ( Lavery, De Billy ) By videoconference On appeal from a judgment rendered on February 27, 2020 by the Honourable Brigitte Gouin of the Court of Québec , District of Montreal . NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Confinement in an institution for a maximum period of 30 days. Clerk at the hearing : Lesly Ramos Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING

10:28 Commencement of the hearing. Submissions by Mtre Leclair. 10:33 Question by the Court and response by Mtre Leclair. 10:39 Recess of the hearing. 10:46 Resumption of the hearing. The Court does not need to hear Mtre Paquet. BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 3. 10:47 Conclusion of the hearing.

Lesly Ramos, Clerk at the hearing JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The respondents presented a motion before the Court of Québec for the confinement of the appellant in an institution following an event which occurred in the context of a minor automobile accident involving a Mercedes on Queen Mary Road in Montreal on February 12, 2020. [ 2 ] The police report, filed without objection from the appellant, who was represented by counsel at the hearing, described the appellant’s strange and dangerous behaviour during the incident involving the Mercedes and the subsequent police intervention.

In the report, the appellant is described as being completely disorganized mentally at the scene of the accident. She expressed the paranoid belief of having been followed by Mercedes automobiles and hearses for the last 14 years. [ 3 ] Following the intervention of the police, the paramedics and staff of the Psychosocial-Justice Emergency unit, the appellant was transported to the Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital and immediately placed in preventive psychiatric confinement. [ 4 ] The Court of Québec subsequently issued a provisional confinement order with a psychiatric evaluation.

The psychiatrists who evaluated the appellant concluded that she has suffered from paranoid delirium for several years, whose symptoms have been confirmed by family members, and that she is dangerous to herself and to others due to her aggressive behavior. [ 5 ] On February 27, 2020, the Court of Québec ordered that the appellant be placed under confinement at the Jewish General Hospital for a maximum period of 30 days. [1] The appellant was released from confinement two weeks later, on March 13, 2020. [ 6 ] Even though the confinement order expired almost a year ago, the appellant maintains her appeal since, in her view, this Court should preventively decide certain issues which are likely to arise again, namely, the weight to be given to the police report and the inferences that could be drawn by a judge from psychiatric reports concerning a conclusion of dangerousness in her particular case. [ 7 ] A court may exercise its discretion to hear a moot case when it is in the public interest to do so [2] or when appropriate to resolve conflicting jurisprudence. [3] A court may also decide to hear a moot case that is brief in duration but potentially recurring in order to ensure that an important question will not evade review. [4] [ 8 ] In this case, the appellant points to no issue of general or public interest that could arise in future cases, including her own.

Rather, the appellant invites this Court to reassess the evidence which was presented and considered by the motions judge. The recurrence of an issue is not in itself a sufficient ground to hear a moot case. [5] [ 9 ] In any event, the appellant failed to identify a palpable and overriding error which might have justified this Court’s intervention had the matter not been moot.

She will have the liberty to raise any relevant argument and make the appropriate objections to the introduction of evidence at the hearing of a subsequent motion for confinement in a psychiatric institution, should one be presented in the future. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 10 ] DISMISSES the appeal, without legal costs. JULIE DUTIL, J.A.

PATRICK HEALY, J.A. SIMON RUEL, J.A. [2] Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, at p. 360; R. v. Smith, 2004 SCC 14, at para.40; R. v. Adams, (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707, at para. 22. [3] R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17, at para. 17. [4] Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, at p. 360. [5] Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, at p. 361.